The team of nova-Institute makes a plea for an evidence-based and much more nuanced view. It was often assumed that the choice for non-food applications would be to the detriment of food supply. In fact, there are many more sides to the equation. Local conditions, sustainability, and social impacts all play a role here. The drivers of food insecurity are complex. They primarily include climate change, conflicts, economic inequality, land rights and inefficiencies in food distribution; rather than competition between food and industrial uses for crops. Using first-generation biomass for non-food applications (like chemicals and derived materials or fuels) does not inherently threaten food security. In fact, it can provide multiple benefits: for climate change mitigation, biodiversity, agricultural resilience, economic stability, and food security (see figure).

A new strategy of Europe’s bioeconomy is expected to be released soon. The bioeconomy produces renewable, non-fossil-based materials and energy solutions from biomass. The new EU strategy aims at boosting Europe’s autonomy and competitiveness, while reducing its reliance on fossil-based resources. The new nova-Institute study shows that the EU has the biomass resources necessary to realize this strategy. It dispels myths about the use of first-generation agricultural biomass, such as starch, sugar and oilseed crops.

A plea for rational arguments

‘Despite widespread concern and frequent policy pushback against the use of first-generation biomass for industrial applications, often originating from concerns of undermining food security, scientific evidence suggests that these concerns are largely misplaced,’ the report states. ‘The debate is shaped by emotional and political arguments rather than robust data or a comprehensive understanding of the global food system.’

The new research highlights four key benefits to the EU from the use of biomass including food crops for non-food applications such as fuels, chemicals and materials:

• Enhancing a resilient and competitive EU agriculture: selling crops to multiple markets gives farmers greater flexibility and reduces their vulnerability to price fluctuations in any single sector; it also encourages investment in innovation and sustainable practices, as farmers can diversify their income and adapt to changes in the market.
• Increased food security: using first-generation biomass for non-food applications strengthens food security in several important ways. This includes improved market stability through delivering protein-rich by-products, providing good availability of food crops and long-term scalability for starch, sugar and oil crops in the EU; while providing an emergency food reserve in times of crisis.
• Supporting climate change mitigation: in order to defossilize European industry – critical for net-zero targets in chemical and fuel sectors – the use of first-generation biomass is indispensable. Although second-generation biomass is widely accepted, first-generation biomass can usually be produced at lower cost and scaled up more easily and significantly.
• Supporting biodiversity protection: food crops are the most efficient use of land for producing starch, sugar and plant oils. Maximizing the productivity of each hectare reduces the total land area required for agriculture; leaving more space for nature and biodiversity protection.

Second-generation crops are not the solution

The study also considers (and discards) using only second-generation sugars (meaning sugar from lignocellulose), instead of using first-generation biomass. Firstly, the same amount of fermentable sugars for the biorefinery would require multiple times the amount of land. Secondly, there would be less protein supply as an important by-product of 1G non-food production. Thirdly, the emergency reserve of first-generation crops (starch, sugar and plant oils) for food crises would be lost, as second-generation crops by definition cannot provide food. And finally, even with 1G sugar prices, biorefineries and bio-based chemicals and materials can hardly compete with fossil solutions; second generation sugars are two to three times more expensive, so any relevant scaling up for defossilization is impossible.

The nova-Institute report was commissioned by the European Bioeconomy Alliance, a multistakeholder, cross-sector platform dedicated to mainstreaming the bioeconomy and achieving its full potential in Europe.

Interesting? Then also read:
First generation bioethanol deserves revaluation, says nova-Institute
The potential of bio waste in Europe
Respectful treatment of the complexity of biomass